Dismissal without prejudice; Requirements for filing a lawsuit; MCR 2.111; Motion for a more definite statement; MCR 2.115(A)

Concluding that plaintiff (acting in propria persona) did not comply with the pleading requirements and applicable MCRs, the court affirmed the order dismissing her case without prejudice. It also noted that defendant-Common Ground was within its rights to request clarification of her allegations, and despite the opportunity to amend her complaint and guidance on how to file a conforming pleading, she failed to state a cause of action. The case arose “from an alleged ‘non-contractual money obligation’ between plaintiff and Common Ground.” The court noted that her original complaint did not meet MCR 2.111(B)(1)’s requirements as “it did not contain ‘specific allegations necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the claims[.]’ Instead, the facts plaintiff relied on were intertwined with her legal allegations and legal jargon, making it difficult to comprehend.” In addition, it “did not contain counts or reasonably inform Common Ground of the nature of the claims against it. Plaintiff also failed to state in an understandable manner what she was alleging or how she supported her claims.” The trial court ordered her “to file an amended complaint or appear at a show cause hearing to show why her complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint a couple days later, but” it likewise failed to comply with the MCRs “and was still unintelligible.” The court concluded that her claims in her “complaints and at the hearing were broad generalizations of alleged mistreatment by Common Ground and Star and were not expanded upon or supported by fact or law.” Although she presented an invoice from defendant-Star EMS and banking information to show that she purportedly paid it, she did not “allege how Common Ground was related to her claim or liable for emergency services provided by Star. Instead, plaintiff’s limited recitation of the facts is repetitive, vague, and disorganized.” As a result, Common Ground was “not informed of the nature of the claim plaintiff is alleging against it.”